On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Jim Weirich wrote:
> Gems that are archived will be moved from the gem directory to an
> archive/gem directory. The archive directory will have its own yaml
> file and quick index (in the format described in part (1) above).
Suppose the server can do the version checking I mentioned before
(older than known then look in the archive). Then the only use I
see for the indices is `gem list -r` when pointing at the
archive[1]. That may be a sufficient condition for having indices
in the archive. But I think most of the time there's no need to
consult indices held there.
Hugh
[1] Though I agree the command should probably take the form 'gem
list -r --archive', and probably --archive should simply imply -r.
When would it make sense for people to have local archives of gems?
Or is assuming they won't, needlessly restricting people's choices?
Gem commands default to looking locally in most cases so that would
break the pattern.